High CourtsSingle Bench(2007) 10 MAD CK 0047

T. Saravana Bhavan vs The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras High Court · Decided on 3 October 2007

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Chockalingam, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 28030 of 2006 and M.P. No. 1 of 2007

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 361 words

M. Chockalingam, J.—Seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner herein full pension, full gratuity,

commutation of pension, Special Provident Fund, V and VI Pay Commission Arrears, encashment of earned leave for 3 months and all other

benefits with interest at 18% per annum, the petitioner has brought forth this writ petition.

2.

The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Additional Government

Pleader for the second respondent.

3.

The only grievance ventilated by the petitioner, is the non-consideration of the representation dated 10.9.2005 for the payment of full pension,

gratuity, commutation of pension, special provident fund, pay commission arrears and encashment of earned leave for three months.

4.

It is not in controversy that he retired on attaining superannuation on 31.5.2001. Originally, provisional pension was given to the petitioner, and

the representations were made by him. Without any avail, he issued a legal notice on 21.6.2006 to the first respondent, and it has not been replied.

Under the circumstances, the petitioner has brought forth this writ petition before this Court.

5.

According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, there are certain audit objections with regard to the benefits as asked for by the

petitioner.

6.

From the submissions made, it would be quite clear that what has been paid to him was only the provisional pension and gratuity, and it has not

been fully paid. Following the representation, which was pending in the hands of the first respondent without being considered, there was a legal

notice issued by him. Though the petitioner has retired from service on attaining superannuation in the month of May 2001, the matter is pending

for the past six years. This Court is able to see inordinate delay. In such circumstances, it has become necessary to issue a direction to the first

respondent to pass necessary orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 10.9.2005, within a period of ten weeks here from as one

required under the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, a direction is issued, and this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently,

connected MP is closed.